On 9/23/2010 6:58 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > These two are somewhat different in practice. > > When the path to the binary is omitted on the invocation/load, the > shell/loader/whatever finds > > * executables only because of the PATH envvar
Correct > * shared libraries usually via the system search path or in the > executable/other-library's > rpath Typically, yes > PATH always, LD_LIBRARY_PATH in exceptional situations And always permitted at the shell prior to execution. But once httpd has started, dropping LD_LIBRARY_PATH deprives the kernel of resolving such libraries, due to our arbitrary choice to propagate PATH, but not propagate LD_LIBRARY_PATH... leading potentially to broken process invocations. Does this make sense? E.g. the choice to propagate PATH, but not LD_LIBRARY_PATH, seems foolish. For those who wish to argue the 'unsafety' of relocatable/dynamic path resolutions, is there really any difference between propagating PATH but not LD_LIBRARY_PATH?
